A comparison of nuclear thermal to nuclear electric propulsion for interplanetary missions
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 31

A Comparison of Nuclear Thermal to Nuclear Electric Propulsion for Interplanetary Missions PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 120 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

A Comparison of Nuclear Thermal to Nuclear Electric Propulsion for Interplanetary Missions. Mike Osenar Mentor: LtCol Lawrence. Overview. Introduction Objective Establish parameters NTR Design NEP Design Discussion and Conclusion. Introduction.

Download Presentation

A Comparison of Nuclear Thermal to Nuclear Electric Propulsion for Interplanetary Missions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


A comparison of nuclear thermal to nuclear electric propulsion for interplanetary missions

A Comparison of Nuclear Thermal to Nuclear Electric Propulsion for Interplanetary Missions

Mike Osenar

Mentor: LtCol Lawrence


Overview

Overview

  • Introduction

  • Objective

  • Establish parameters

  • NTR Design

  • NEP Design

  • Discussion and Conclusion


Introduction

Introduction

  • NASA is developing Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) systems for Project Prometheus, a series of interplanetary missions

  • What happened to Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) systems? Should NASA only invest in NEP systems?


Objectives

Objectives

  • Prove the feasibility of different nuclear propulsion systems for interplanetary missions which fit in a single launch vehicle

  • Compare NTR and NEP system designs for given missions

    Method: take a set of inputs, use a series of calculations and SPAD process along with reasonable design assumptions to design a spacecraft to reach a given ΔV


Establish parameters

Establish Parameters

  • Establish ΔV’s and flight times for both NEP and NTR systems to Jupiter and Pluto

  • Determine launch vehicle payload restrictions

  • Obtain design points – inert mass fractions based on thruster specific impulses


Establish parameters1

Establish Parameters

  • NEP ΔV’s and flight times based on AIAA 2002-4729 – low thrust gravity assist trajectories

  • NTR data derived from NEP data


Establish parameters2

Establish Parameters

  • Relationship between NEP ΔV/TOF and NTR ΔV/TOF

  • Table shows that NTR has same TOF for 50% of the ΔV

  • NTR numbers based on AIAA 1992-3778


Establish parameters3

Ariane 5 Payload Specifications

Establish Parameters


Establish parameters4

Establish Parameters


Establish parameters5

Establish Parameters

Design points established from Dumbkopff charts


Ntr design

NTR Design

Size system so that it meets 3 specifications

  • Under max payload mass

  • Fits in payload fairing

  • Reaches required ΔV


Ntr design1

NTR Design

Inputs from Dumbkopff: finert, ΔV

Assumptions

Po = 7 MPa

Isp = 1000 s – hydrogen

Tc = 3200 K

T/W = .3 – experimented, balance between high thrust short burn time and low reactor mass (low power)


Ntr design2

NTR Design

  • Equations for basic parameters


Ntr design3

NTR Design

Subsystem Sizing (note: volume constraint height)

Payload

1000 kg to Jupiter, 500 to Pluto

based on densities of actual space mission

sized as 2 m tall cylinder

Tank

biggest part – hydrogen has low density


Ntr design4

NTR Design

Turbo Pump Feed System

Nuclear Reactor

Radiation Shield

standard SPAD design – 18 cm Be, 5 cm W, 5 cm LiH2


Ntr design5

NTR Design

Nozzle

Columbium, designed to be ideally expanded in space (ε=100)

Miscellaneous

Avionics

Reactor containment vessel

Attitude thrusters

Structural mass


Ntr design6

Payload

Propellant Tank

Pump

Shield

Reactor

Nozzle

NTR Design

Achievable ΔV verified with Rocket Equation

Vehicle height determined by stacking parts according to Figure


Ntr design7

NTR Design

Final Results of NTR Design


Nep design

NEP Design

Size system so that it meets 2 specifications

  • Under max payload mass

  • Reaches required ΔV

    No size requirement – analysis showed that NEP systems would violate mass constraints before volume – no low-density hydrogen propellant


Nep design1

NEP Design

Power Source

  • Nuclear Reactors (P>6 kWe)

    • Critical reactors designed as small as 6 kWe

  • Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG) (P<6 kWe)

  • Solar?


Nep design2

NEP Design

  • Solar Power proportional to inverse square of distance from sun

  • to receive power equal to 1 m2 solar panel in earth orbit, would need 27 m2 panel at Jupiter and 1562 m2 panel at Pluto

  • does not factor in degradation – significant for long lifetimes

  • engineering, GNC concerns with huge solar array

  • mass too much


Nep design3

NEP Design

  • Thrusters based on actual designed thrusters from SPAD

  • Baselines used: T6, XIPS-25, RIT-XT

  • Design allowed thrusters to be clustered in groups of up to 3 – proven to work, increases force and power appropriately


Nep design4

NEP Design

  • Use NTR equations for propellant mass, thrust, mass flow and power

  • NEP equations:


Nep design5

NEP Design

Subsystem Design

  • Power system

  • Propellant tank

  • Thruster mass

  • Power conditioning mass

  • Other mass (structural, feed systems, avionics, etc.)


Nep design6

NEP Design

NEP Design Results


Discussion and conclusion

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Overall, ΔV’s were low – real science mission would need higher ΔV to capture orbit of planet, maneuver

  • Accurate data on EP trajectories was desired over ΔV’s for realistic missions


Discussion and conclusion1

Discussion and Conclusion

NTR Design

  • Almost failed Pluto design – tank volume

  • High thrust, impulsive burn more reliable – operates for short time

  • Much less efficient then NEP

  • Other applications? launch vehicle, human Mars exploration


Discussion and conclusion2

Discussion and Conclusion

NEP Design

  • Low thrust, long trip times

  • Lifetime analysis – electric thrusters tested to 3.5 years – less than Jupiter TOF

  • Space Nuclear reactors require extensive testing


Discussion and conclusion3

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Testing – extensive testing needed for either system – facilities, money needed to test for operational lifetime

  • Safety – perennial concern with nuclear systems, real hazards to be considered

  • Radiological hazard – higher with NEP (low power but long burn time), must be addressed for either system


Discussion and conclusion4

Discussion and Conclusion

  • NASA probably right to go with NEP for interplanetary missions

  • Much stands between now and operational nuclear propulsion system

  • Much to be gained from nuclear propulsion technology


Discussion and conclusion5

Discussion and Conclusion

Questions?


  • Login